The Delhi High Court, based on the submissions of both sides, has directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the case again. The court ordered a personal hearing for the authoritative representatives of the petitioners.
The petitioner/assessee has assailed via the instant writ petition, the order dated 20.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also challenged the notice dated 29.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act. In addition thereto, there is also a challenge laid to Instruction No.1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
Ananya Kapoor, appeared on behalf of petitioner/assessee, conceded that no response was submitted by the petitioner/assessee to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The Counsel asserted that among the 3 transactions amounting to Rs.33,81,000, Rs.35,51,459 and Rs.3,20,000 mentioned by the authorities, one transaction amounting Rs.33,81,000 was not entered by the petitioner. If the amount was taken out of the equation, the alleged escaped income would be below Rs.50 lakhs.
Ananya Kapoor appeared for the petitioner and Gaurav Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Puneet Singhal appeared for the respondent-department. The two judge bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia disposed the writ petition with directing Assessing Officer to proceeds to pass an assessment order, he would verify the assertion made by the petitioner/assessee which is recorded in the reply, and in this context, also accord personal hearing to the petitioner/assessee and/or his authorised representative.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
